Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post-Wright Low

In the wake of the revelations about speeches made by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, Obama's numbers began to sink, both nationally and in individual states around the country. Some were quick to point to these numbers as proof of a significant and long-term shift away from Obama and to Hillary Clinton -- too quick, perhaps. Here's Gallup today:

Barack Obama has quickly made up the deficit he faced with Hillary Clinton earlier this week, with the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on Democratic presidential nomination preferences showing 48% of Democratic voters favoring Obama and 45% Clinton.

Obama's campaign clearly suffered in recent days from negative press, mostly centering around his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Perhaps as a result, Clinton moved into the lead in Gallup's Wednesday release, covering March 16-18 polling. But Obama has now edged back ahead of Clinton due to a strong showing for him in Friday night's polling, perhaps in response to the endorsement he received from well-respected New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former rival for the nomination. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 2, 2008, click here.)

Both Democrats have inched closer to John McCain in the latest update on registered voters' general election preferences. McCain holds just a two percentage point edge over both -- 46% to 44% over Obama and 47% to 45% over Clinton.

In the three days since March 18, the day that Obama delivered his Philadelphia speech on the issue of race, Obama has moved from a 49 percent to 42 percent deficit to a 48 percent to 45 percent lead -- a net shift of 10 points in just three days. While all of this could represent statistical noise -- Obama held a similar 48 percent of 45 lead as recently as March 15, one week ago today -- these numbers do seem to undercut the notion that Obama has become dead in the water as a result of Wright's rhetoric being exposed. I'd still like to wait to see some other polling confirm the clear trend found by Gallup, but it just might be that Obama's speech, as well as Bill Richardson's timely endorsement yesterday, might have turned the back the tide for Obama just over four weeks out from balloting in Pennsylvania and just over six weeks out from voting in North Carolina and Indiana.



Display:


Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 8)

Most people (like myself) can't help but to like Obama and give him the benefit of the doubt.

Does this mean he'll make a wonderful President? Not necessarily, but it doesn't mean Hillary will either.


AnnMarie
by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:07:04 PM EST

For once I read BEFORE posting (2.00 / 8)

And it pays off on Comment #1! :)

The speeches and the endorsements probably are part of the explanation.  The other parts are generally overlooked (except by wiscogirl101 (but what else but wisdom is found in Wisconsin? (cheese (and the Packers (and snow!))))) Those being, time and thought.

Bottom line, does anyone think a black man grows to adulthood without a steeping in angry rhetoric?  Hearing others express their anger does not make one a disciple of that anger. Were that true, every single black American would be a ball of fury.

Clearly Barack Obama is not operating out of a desire to feed his anger.  He is aware of the anger and I am sure he extends a measure of sympathy to those made angry.  But he is obviously not in anger's thrall.

Sen Obama is in thrall to problem-solving. He comes across as a decent man.  With a week's worth of hindsight, common sense and the average American voter have reached the same conclution.  


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For once I read BEFORE posting (2.00 / 5)

I agree completely


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:25:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For once I read BEFORE posting (2.00 / 4)

I think you're right.  I think most people are good and fair. We have baggage and differences, but we also have a lot in common and a lot of serious issues that need addressing, issues that effect all of us.  

Obama reminded us of that, and people listened.  I believe the Democrats will win big in November, no matter who the nominee is.


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:17:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 5)

There's nothing to suggest that Clinton can possibly get the string of 60-40 wins she'd need to make this competitive again in the delegate race.

He has taken the hardest shots that the Vast Clinton Surrogate Conspiracy has to offer, and he's still standing and thriving.  And she just doesn't have the CoH to match what he's going to be able to do on field and GOTV in these next few states.


by Adam B on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:07:39 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 5)

Lets keep things friendly. I'm an Obama supporter, and very happy with how he's weathered this storm. But there's no reason to imply that it was in any way the Clinton campaign's doing.


by noop on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

No reason?  You think these tapes just magically appeared thanks to the crack Fox News research team?  

And, also, all of the crap out of Penn's and WJC's mouths ...


by Adam B on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:09:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 3)

Come on!  Be a little rational.  Would you wait until yourself is far behind in the delegate count to do something like that?  I find it simply absurd that some people are so willing to think ill of Hillary Clinton while refusing to cast a tiny bit of doubt on Obama.  I also find it unbelievably offensive that some people would call the Clintons are racists.  


by observer11 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:21:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 4)

I'm not saying the Clintons haven't crossed the line before. I think they have, and that's how they lost my support. But no good can come of blaming them for this situation.

The fact is that the Wright thing would have popped up eventually, and this is really the best possible time. If it had hit earlier, it might have severely hurt Obama in the primaries. If it had hit later, it would have hurt him for the general election. As it stands, it hit in the biggest lull in the primary schedule--after he has the nomination cinched on delegates. And it's a month out from a contest that he was expected to lose anyway. This gives his campaign enough time to do damage control while inoculating against this in the general. Finally, he capped the week off with a major endorsement coup that's totally changed the media narrative.

The timing and expert handling of this situation turned it into a blessing in disguise. So, lets not dwell on unfounded accusations when we need to heal the party wounds and get our candidate elected in November.


by noop on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 1)

Actually, yes, I think they did. It's been in the media that there are highly questionable types of Wright for a couple months. There's no reason to attribute this to the Clinton campaign (and I don't mean that in a Clintonesque "there's no reason to believe that" sense).

There's no evidence for that and there's plenty of reason to believe this was FOX News doing their job.

There's plenty -- plenty -- of real stuff to blame the Clinton campaign before. Don't go blaming them for stuff it's highly likely they didn't do.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:45:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 5)

Nah, I doubt it was the Clinton camp.  The timing's all wrong.  

A day or two before an election day would make sense, because he wouldn't have time to respond.  But a month before an election?  As good as his campaign has been, they couldn't have expected it to hold him down for THAT long.  

It hurt him, but I really don't think it came from the Clintons.


Torture me once, shame on you; torture me and get away with it, shame on us all.
by freedom78 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:16:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

The Obama campaign has known that Wright was a problem way back when the campaign started:

CHICAGO, March 5 -- The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., senior pastor of the popular Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and spiritual mentor to Senator Barack Obama, thought he knew what he would be doing on Feb. 10, the day of Senator Obama's presidential announcement.

After all, back in January, Mr. Obama had asked Mr. Wright if he would begin the event by delivering a public invocation.

But Mr. Wright said Mr. Obama called him the night before the Feb. 10 announcement and rescinded the invitation to give the invocation.

"Fifteen minutes before Shabbos I get a call from Barack," Mr. Wright said in an interview on Monday, recalling that he was at an interfaith conference at the time. "One of his members had talked him into uninviting me," Mr. Wright said, referring to Mr. Obama's campaign advisers.

Some black leaders are questioning Mr. Obama's decision to distance his campaign from Mr. Wright because of the campaign's apparent fear of criticism over Mr. Wright's teachings, which some say are overly Afrocentric to the point of excluding whites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/pol itics/06obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin& amp;oref=slogin

Didn't Fox News buy those tapes from the church, by the way?


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:56:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 13)

I think you mean Obama is toast and this race is over and he's a racist and everyone hates him and if he wins McCain will win 99% of the vote and the Democratic policy will be abolished.

I know this is true, because I read it in the diaries.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:09:11 PM EST

The London Times says the Opposite (none / 0)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo rld/us_and_americas/us_elections/article 3591359.ece

Barack Obama has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his pastor's inflammatory remarks and the issue has become a serious threat to his presidential ambitions, polls suggest.


by earthoat on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:11:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The London Times says the Opposite (2.00 / 3)

That article is based on the polls from earlier in the week.  This post is how they've come back for Obama.


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:23:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The London Times says the Opposite (2.00 / 3)

There's now considerably polling and research specific to Wright and Obama's speech that suggests that this isn't nearly as "terminal" as the Clinton side was desperately hoping it was earlier in the week.

I believe this is the fourth or fifth thing that was supposed to be the nail in the coffin for Obama.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The London Times says the Opposite (2.00 / 2)

The Times of London, just like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post is a Murdoch-owned outlet. It should be trusted as no more a reliable source of news than its siblings.


by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:00:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The London Times says the Opposite (none / 0)

LOL! I hope you are being snarky. Otherwise, WTF?


by kitebro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:11:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 4)

eh, I think had Hillary not underestimated Caucuses she would have been the nominee

so its less that he beat it, and more that Hillary made a strategic mistake.


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:10:34 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 8)

yeah, Mark Penn, the strategic mistake.


by NvDem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:15:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 7)

Most if not all of her advisors are just terrible and horribly overpaid.  You're right, she could have won this easily.

But her campaign was so arrogant to think they had it in hand, they failed to plan past Feb 5th both in terms of caucuses, fundraising....

And thats why she's behind. Its not fair to make the same comparison, but its not much different than Bush not planning past toppling Saddam.

Short sighted people (which Hillary was in this primary) tend to end up with egg on their faces.


AnnMarie
by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 5)

Political Science professors make a living out of explaining campaigns... the efficacy and failure... both in the classroom and in books... This primary season will be a goldmine for them.

The nice thing is that, from a purely scholarly standpoint, the Obama campaign makes for a good study in how to run a campaign.  The bad thing is that the Clinton campaign is the opposite.  Obama is doing well as a result of his campaign... Clinton is doing well despite hers...


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

sorry to disagree with you, really. but "..And that's why she's behind....they failed to plan past feb 5th...caucuses, fundraising".

i think she might be behind because voters believe that sen obama is a better candidate. the fact that she is behind cannot be blamed only on strategic problems.


by hueydixiepearl on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:59:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

i think strategic problems are what have done her in. Plain and simple. All clinton needed to do was put a ground game in caucus states and she's in the drivers seat today (or already the nominee). demographics say she might have won iowa, idaho, maine, colorado, nebraska, utah and so on and on with a strong ground game.
!
by alex100 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:50:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mark Penn IS the (2.00 / 3)

strategic mistake. A walking, muttering one. Something about insignificant this and that.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:39:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 6)

Gosh, and she only had, what, 6-7 years to prepare for this election, to study each state's rules, etc?  What would she do with a 3 AM call about something for which she's unprepared?


by Adam B on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:17:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

Exactly. This is an excellent opportunity to observe HRC and Obama looking at a situation and coming up with the right strategy. Judgement in action: HRC misjudged the situation in crucial ways, while Obama assessed it correctly and set up the right organizatino to tackle it. The latter is what we need in the White House.


by minordomo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 3)

Pretty tough to deny that.

Assuming FL & MI hadn't defected, or HRC had pushed for a revote early rather than trying to seat their voided elections, and on top of that she had contested the smaller/redder states (which are not all caucuses), she would probably be way ahead.

Which is probably why she was the presumptive front runner by a longshot before the race started. No one expected her to make strategic election errors. (Well... maybe Obama did?)


by mattw on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:16:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 4)

6 weeks later and I still don't understand why she did those.  It was obvious back on Super Tuesday that it wasn't going to work.  How could her high paid strategy people not see what random folks on the Internet could?


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:52:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lesson of 2007 (2.00 / 2)

Maybe the most important lesson is that in an open primary, the presumptive front-runner at the beginning is wearing a big "kick me" sign--it is a very bad position to be in. It was instantly fatal to Dean, and kicked the crap out of Hillary. (The same rule worked on the Republican side, too, though they didn't really have a clear front-runner; the guy who was left for dead months ago turned out to be the biggest winner once the voting started.)

Lesson: Don't ever tell the voters who's going to win before anyone votes.


by Alice in Florida on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:58:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson of 2007 (2.00 / 1)

I agree totally. in fact, I'd extend it to being just simply the front runner. Obama has had his worse days when he's been considered the "front runner." New Hampshire did him a great favor. had he won Iowa and New Hampshire back to back, Hillary would have kicked out that Penn guy, retooled her campaign, called on her supporters, started the internet fundraising she didn't start until the thing was practically over, etc. etc. She would have also probably thrown the kitchen sink back then, rather than wait for Obama to run away with the thing. On well. There is still hope though. Much can happen between now and the convention.


by poserM on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:27:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson of 2007 (2.00 / 1)

Now the interesting question is: is the front runner status deadly because of public perception, or media treatment?


by mattw on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:39:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson of 2007 (none / 0)

bingo. media treatment, or mistreatment. the media certainly have a dog in this fight. ad revenue. they're making millions. i believe we will see the pendelum(sp) swing again and again before this is over.


by hueydixiepearl on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:04:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're exactly right (2.00 / 6)

Hillary had an overwhelming advantage and is losing because she made a series of major strategic mistakes, and Obama played the hand he was dealt almost perfectly.

Here are some other strategic mistakes: failing to get health care passed in 1992, failing to work well with the Democratically controlled congress of 1992, NAFTA, China, Iraq War vote, negative campaigning, no Plan B for Obama surviving past Feb. 5, expensive and incompetent advisors such as Mark Penn ...

What are some examples of strategic brilliance on Hillary's part?

Obama has been strategically brilliant at each stage of the game, even when faced with major obstacles. He's stayed calm, kept to the high road, and shown great foresight in planning and executing his campaign plan. He's consistently though many moves ahead and when he gets broadsided by something, he reacts calmly and convincingly.

This is the person I want answering that phone at 3:00 a.m. This is the person I want planning out an effective way to accomplish the goals that he, Hillary, and everyone here feel are so critical to the survival of this democracy. This is the person I want going one on one with John McCain and cutting through his phony media image to the dangerous and misguided fool that he really is. This is the person I want making the critical decisions in September and October that will decide not only the presidency, but the fates of many congressional, senatorial and state-level candidates. This is the person I trust to come through in the clutch.

Obama is Presidential.


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:39:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 2)

Obviously, whatever side gets a good poll a post will go up.  Frankly, we won't know anything until Pennsylvania votes and NC and IN shortly thereafter.  Probably, polls showing either one up at this point in the democratic primary aren't that relevant. The polls that matter are ones that measure independents and those up against McCain.


by MidwestTracker on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:12:37 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 4)

But it's not just Gallup. Obama is ahead in five of the last six polls, with an average difference between Obama and Clinton http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/democratic_presidentia l_nomination-191.html


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

PA is tainted. Republicans are voting for Hillary. Just like Ohio and Texas. And they wouldn't vote for her in Nov. PA will only tell us how screwed up it is to have a Dem primary after the GOP has their nominee. If Clinton uses that for an excuse to keep this going, she has no principles.


by kitebro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:20:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 7)

Andrew Sullivan just posted the full Wright 9/11 sermon.  I'm going to place it below so you can see those quotes in context.  You may not like the sermon as a whole or you might.  But I think it's worth reading - and passing along for others to read -- it in full.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th e_daily_dish/2008/03/the-wright-post.htm l
    "Every public service of worship I have heard about so far in the wake of the American tragedy has had in its prayers and in its preachments, sympathy and compassion for those who were killed and for their families, and God's guidance upon the selected Presidents and upon our war machine, as they do what they do and what they gotta do -- paybacks.

   There's a move in Psalm 137 from thoughts of paying tithes to thoughts of paying back, A move, if you will from worship to war, a move in other words from the worship of th God of creation to war against those whom God Created.  And I want you to notice very carefully this next move.  One of the reasons this Psalm is rarely read, in its entirety, because it is a move that spotlights the insanity of the cycle of violence and the cycle of hatred.

   Look at the verse; Look at the verse; Look at verse nine:  [rising voice] "Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rocks."[lower voice]  The people of faith are the rivers of Babylon.  How shall we sing the Lord's song?  If I forget the order ... The people of faith,  have moved from the hatred of armed enemies [rising voice]--these soldiers who captured the king; those soldiers who slaughtered his son, that put his eyes out; those soldiers who sacked the city, burned, burned the towns, the burned the temple,  burned the towers, they have moved from the hatred of [loudest voice] armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents -- [low voice] the babies, the babies.

   Blessed are they who dash your baby's brains against a rock.  And that,  my beloved,  is a dangerous place to be, yet that is where the people of faith are in the 551BC, and that is where far too many people of faith are in 2001 AD.  We have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents.  We want revenge, we want paybacks, and we don't care who gets hurt in the process.

   Now I asked the Lord, what should our response be in light of such an unthinkable act, but before I share with you what the Lord shared with me I want to give you one of my little faith footnotes.

   Visitors, I often give little faith footnotes, so that our members don't lose sight of the big picture, let me give you a faith footnote. Turn to your neighbor and say, "Faith footnote."  [Voices: "Faith footnote"]

   [Begin faith footnote]

   I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday.  Did anybody else see him or hear him, he was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end.   He pointed out, (Did you see him, John?) --a white man-- he pointed out-- an ambassador-- that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, America's chickens are coming home to roost.

   We took this country, by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arrowak (phonetic) the Comanche, the Arapajo, the Navajo.  Terrorism--we took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear.  Terrorism.  We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians -- babies, non-military personnel.  We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with Stealth Bombers and killed unarmed teenagers, and toddlers, pregnant mothers  and hard working father.  [fullest voice]  We bombed Khadafi, his home and killed his child.  Blessed be they who bash your children's head agains the rocks.

   [fullest voice]  We bombed Iraq, we killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living.  We bombed the plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy -- killed hundreds of hard working people --mothers and fathers, who left home to go that day, not knowing they'd never get back home.  [Even fuller voice] We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.  Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school -- civilians not soldiers.  People just trying to make it day by day.  We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa and now we are indignant?  Because the stuff we have done overseas is brought back into our own front yard.

   America's chickens are coming home, to roost.  Violence begets violence.  Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism.

   [lower voice] A White ambassador said that, y'all, not a black militant.  Not a Reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and whose trying to get us to wake up, and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised.  The ambassador said that the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them, and we need to come to grips with that.

   Let me stop my faith footnote right there, and ask you to think about that over the next few weeks if God grants us that many days.  Turn back to your neighbor, and say, "Footnote is over."  [Voices:  "Footnote is over."]

   [End Faith Footnote]

   [Gentle voice]  Now, now.  C'mon back to my question to the Lord, "What should our response be right now. In light of such an unthinkable act.  I asked the Lord that question Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

   I was stuck in Newark, New Jersey.  No flights were leaving La Guardia, JFK, or Newark Airport.  On the day tht the FAA opened up the airports to bring into the destinations of cities those flights that had been diverted because of the hijacking, a scare in New York close all three regional airports and I couldn't even get her for Mr. Radford's father's funeral.  And I asked God, "What should our response be?

   I saw pictures of the incredible.  People jumping from the 110th floor; people jumping from the roof because the stair wells and elevators above the 89th floor were gone-- no more.  Black people, jumping to a certain death; people holding hands jumping; people on fire jumping.  [plaintiff high voice]  And I asked the Lord, "What should our response be?" I read what the people of faith felt in 551BC.  But this is a different time, this is a different enemy, a different world,  a different terror.   This is a different reality.  What should our response be, and the Lord showed me three things.  Let me share them with you quickly and I'm gonna leave you alone to think about the faith footnote.

   Number one:  The Lord showed me that this is a time for self-examination. [cheers] As I sat 900 miles away from my family and my community of faith, two months after my own father's death, God showed me that this  was a time for me to examine my relationship with God.  MY own relationship with God-- personal relationship with God.

   I submit to you that it is the same for you. Folk flocked to the church in New Jersey last week, you know that foxhole-religion syndrome kicked in, that emergency chord religion, you know that little red box you pull in emergency?  It showed up in full force.  Folk who aint thought about coming to church in years, were in church last week.  I heard that mid-week prayer services all over this country which are poorly attended fifty-one week a year were jam packed all over the nation the week of the hijacking the 52nd week.  [inaudible]

   But the Lord said, this aint the time for you to be examining other folks relationship this is a time of self examination.  But the Lord said, "How is "our" relationship doing Jeremiah?  How often do you talked to me personally, how often do you let me talk to you privately?  How much time do you spend trying to get right with me, or do you spend all your time trying to get other folk right?

   This is a time for me to examine my own relationship with God.   Is it real or is it fake?  Is it forever or is it for show?  Is is something that you do for the sake of the public or is it something that you do  for the sake of eternity?  [voice rising]  This is a time for me to examine my own, and a time for you to examine your own relationship with God -- self examination.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:12:55 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly (2.00 / 4)

This just goes to show that most important ideas are not capable of being communicated in sound bites.  

One of things I like the most about Obama is his even temper and thoughtfulness.  

Maybe some of those characteristics will wear off on our country if he becomes president.


by ruskin on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maaaaaaaybeeeeeee (none / 0)

having as one spiritual mentor an outspoken firely rhetorician has prepared Sen Obama to remain unfinching in the face of provocation?  Perhaps dogged if at times over-the-top challenge to the issues has helped Sen Obama think through problems from begining to end?  Has helped him appreceate the wisdom of hard work over the easy answer?

Just wonderin'.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:55:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Andrew Sullivan was a conservative (none / 0)

republican until he cried on TV after realizing his party wouldn't let him marry his male partner. His hatred for Hillary is like the vengance of one who gave up smoking and is intolerant of those who still do.


by laternighter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i've watched a number of the sermons in full (2.00 / 4)

and they are all moving and brilliant. i can see why Obama has so much respect for the man.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 1)

Wow.  Thank you for posting.


by mady on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:41:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 3)

You're welcome.

You can read the Audacity to Hope sermon here http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th e_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html

This one is quite amazing.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:04:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 2)

While Obama supporters fall all over themselves extolling the campaign's "turnaround" following the Wright controversy (evidenced by a Gallup poll published today showing Obama up by three,) I'll just toss out a contrary poll from Scott Rasmussen that shows Hillary up by two -- a swing of three in her direction.

And that's not all.
On Saturday, Obama's favorable ratings slipped a little further--46% favorable, 51% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. McCain is viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 54% unfavorable.
The last time he was even close to this territory was November 20, 2007 when his favorables were at 44%, his unfavorables at 50%, and not a whole lot of people knew much about him.


by zane on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:39:17 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 4)

I, for one, wont say that BO is out of the woods yet with the Wright situation.  But the magnificent speech does seem to have helped, as it should.  I agree with one of the previous posters that BO just has such a cool headedness about him, no matter how things are going.  This is definite plus.

CBS poll came out yesterday that shows 70% approval for BO on the speech.  70% do not feel that it will make a difference for them in the GE.  Of the 30% who do, half say that it will make them more likely to vote for him.  


by sbbonerad on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Time (2.00 / 1)

Shall further erode that 30%.  Of course, there is a floor to that approval rating and it's not too terribly far below that 30%, probably.  We have a name for that floor and it's not parquet.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:59:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

rasmussen has consistently underpolled obama's (2.00 / 2)

support and oversold his "negatives."  he's no longer an outlier, there is clearly something wrong with his methodology.  there's not a single pollster out there that confirms rasmussen's findings.

gallup, otoh, has been confirmed by other pollsters consistently...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:11:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gallup vs. Rasmussen (none / 0)

Very odd, as their other polling (Iraq and Senate races seem to be in line with other polls).

Maybe they're picking a more disillusioned electorate that's rejected both Obama and Clinton.

I will say Rasmussen might have a slight bias, but Scott nailed the 2004 election.  Could it be the turnout model?


by mikelow1885 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:45:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its a tie and has been since Feb 2. (2.00 / 2)

Take a look at this picture.  Its the Gallup tracking poll since Jan. 3.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008. aspx

We've been at dead even for seven weeks.


by dbrown04 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:47:36 PM EST

Re: Its a tie and has been since Feb 2. (2.00 / 1)

Did you mean this?


by poserM on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:33:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not exactly, but (none / 0)

If you follow my link and scroll down a bit you can see a longer time series that goes back to Jan 2.

But, can you tell me how you got that picture in your comment?  Enquiring minds want to know.


by dbrown04 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:53:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly, but (none / 0)

I used the img HTML tag. You can read about the various parameters at http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_img.as p

Mine looked like this:
'&lt' img src="http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/0322 08DailyUpdateGraph1.gif" &gt

replace '&lt' and '&gt' with less then and greater than signs.


by poserM on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:38:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks. n/t (none / 0)


by dbrown04 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Today's RASMUSSEN shows Hillary is leading (2.00 / 2)

Nationally, Hillary Clinton now holds a very slight advantage over Barack Obama, 46% to 44%. Before the story broke about his former Pastor, Obama led Clinton by eight percentage points (see recent daily results).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll

Even more importantly, Obama's Favorability-Unfavorability ratings have gone from 56%-41% a month ago to 46%-51% now, a swing of 20 points.

It seems to be Obama is still dropping like a stone.


by BigB on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:48:54 PM EST

Re: Today's RASMUSSEN shows Hillary is leading (2.00 / 2)

OMg stop this!

3 days ago we were linking Gallup  against rass. now its the reverse

if obama rebounds then what?

no one is going to decide the primary based on polls, otherwise it would have ended along time ago


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:53:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Today's RASMUSSEN shows Hillary is leading (2.00 / 4)

The Hillary campaign is now solely dependent on polls because their only argument now is that of "electability".

Which means, that since they failed to convince people not to vote for Obama based on the candidates' own merits, they're now relying on convincing them not to vote for Obama based on perceptions of whether other people may vote for Obama.

Hence attempts to use polls.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:03:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Today's RASMUSSEN shows Hillary is leading (2.00 / 2)

And what do you call Beaton's post?

You bet this election is about electability. We are supposed to win in November, remember? It's not a game that you stop half-way because you falsely claim you have the delegates to stop the election.

The Wright debacle - including his ineptness in responding to it (speech not withstanding) - has damaged him. More importantly, it's left him open to the vetting he has escaped in this process.

The ineptness includes the following. Delivering the speech in the morning so it could be picked apart for sound-bites during the rest of the day. Followed up by the typical white person - the gotcha photo with Clinton that only kept it alive in people's minds - and his seeming contradictions on Larry King.

Now we have seen a return to the hysteria by his surrogates. Bill engages in McCarthyism. Hillary is nothing more than Mamie Eisenhower.

This is the same crap that kept Obama from closing the deal in the first place. He couldn't control his people on going after Hillary on a incredibly vindicative basis. His fear of an actual election was apparent by his decision to stop re-votes in MI and FLA.  

All of that strengthens the argument that he is not electable in the fall.


by cath on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:18:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Today's RASMUSSEN shows Hillary is leading (2.00 / 4)

"And what do you call Beaton's post?"

Difference is that the Obama fans are relying on their candidate's pledged delegate and popular vote advantage -- not on polls that change day by day.

"You bet this election is about electability. We are supposed to win in November, remember?"

Yes, that means you ought be trying to boost the electability of your candidate by lending your voice on why he/she should be elected. Not on why the other Democratic candidate oughtn't.

Argue why Obama or Clinton should be the candidate because of such-and-such an issue and you end up increasing their electability on November as well.

When you argue instead that e.g. no sane individual is gonna vote on them, you are helping diminishing their electability -- by in essense insulting everyone who does vote for them, by making a big deal over issues you ought be trying to minimize, by focusing on the candidate's weakness and not on his strengths.

Electability is like a subatomic particle, you can't pretend to observe it without affecting it. But you still have the choice of HOW to affect it.

Instead of trying to increase Hillary's electability, the Hillary fans are now just trying to diminish Obama's. And the amusing self-referential thing is they're trying to diminish Obama's electability by arguing about his electability.

Well yeah, as I've said before, Obama proved his worth in a campaign by having defeated Hillary so far. For such a supposedly electable person with all the advantages of party mechanism and name recognition, Hillary screwed it up just fine.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

obama supporters are relying on... (2.00 / 2)

* the number of states won

  • the number of votes cast for him (and her)
  • the number of delegates elected by voters
  • the amount of (primary) money raised
  • the number of volunteers mobilized

otoh, hillary is relying on her name and her connections.  apparently, voters are supposed to be impressed...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Today's RASMUSSEN shows Hillary is leading (none / 0)

Well, no. It won't be decided on polls, however I suppose it isn't suprising that the polls reflect the actual results.

In most polls, Obama has had a slight lead. That the same slight lead he has in delegates, popular vote....

So I'd say that the polls seem to be somewhat accurate, retroactively.


AnnMarie
by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Today's RASMUSSEN shows Hillary is leading (none / 0)

BO typically polls not as well on the weekends. His supporters seems to be harder to reach by phone Fri-Sun.  


by sbbonerad on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:54:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have a question (none / 0)

Are tracking poll swings front page material?


by Coldblue on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:02:10 PM EST

They Would Be If Hillary Leads (none / 0)

If it's Obama, not so much
by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:27:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Does it matter who leads? (none / 0)


by Coldblue on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:46:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I dunno (2.00 / 2)

we get tons of front page Hillary leads material. So you tell me.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tell you what? (none / 0)

I asked a question.


by Coldblue on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:47:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it was a rhetorical (2.00 / 1)

question. The point I was making is that Poll leads for Hillary has become standard material for ront page. NO reason why it woudl not be the same for Obama.

Its a slow news day...so I guess they want to put up something.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have a question (none / 0)

Not if your candidate is currently losing.


by Cleveland John on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:02:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have a question (none / 0)

Answer: Not this far out, it's more important to look at the trend of the poll.  It shows Obama clawing his way back up after the hit he took from the Wright video.  I like the Rasmussen tracking poll, it's a four day moving average.  More accurate for tracking 'events' and their comeback (or non-comeback).


by NvDem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:41:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have a question (none / 0)

Not at all times, but at a point like where we are now, where we're waiting to see the blowback from a scandal, it's definitely news, and I'm trying to keep up with it.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:53:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

christ. (2.00 / 2)

i think you should stop being petulant.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:12:13 PM EST

Re: christ. (none / 0)

Ah --- what a mature remark.

By I suppose in your world petulance includes that nasty little thing called facts to the contrary.


by cath on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nope. (2.00 / 0)

just being a dick.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:32:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

im not an "obama blogger" (none / 0)

im a kucinich blogger.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:30:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

scratch that (none / 0)

im a vermonter.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:31:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: scratch that (none / 0)

you too?  whenever people say stuff like this, just tell them either
A) i'm a contrarian (we all are in one way or another)
or

B) TUGWOS.


Being Normal is for the Mediocre.
by Doug Tuttle on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

1777-1791 (none / 0)

the second republic will rise again.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:01:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh. (2.00 / 2)

As a front-page blogger and myDD steward, I think you have a responsibility to be more balanced.
Tell Jerome and Todd. :)


by Adam B on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:15:49 PM EST

Post-Wright Low (2.00 / 1)

I think it's worth pointing out that Obama's slip in the polls over the past week has been due to one thing, and one thing only--  the Pastor Wright flap.  Hillary Clinton has done absolutely nothing to advance her candidacy.  She spent a good part of the week wandering around Michigan, grumbling about Party rules and delegate allocation.

This is more evidence that her campaign advisors just don't get it--  If you are running for the Presidency, it's a good idea to act Presidential.
Standing around and letting your surrogates pound your opponent with a five year-old video tape of a preacher doesn't put you on the road to the White House.

Under difficult circumstances, Obama stood up and spoke to the nation about a challenging topic.  He followed that up with a major foreign policy address, and then won the endorsement of an important Governor and former Clinton ally and confidant.  No wonder he is regaining lost ground.


by global yokel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:17:34 PM EST

Re: Post-Wright Low (none / 0)

Richardson, an important governor?

Someone whose campaign tanked. Someone who never stood up for David Iglesias during the US Attorney hearings. Someone who didn't have the courage to endorse Obama prior either his state or (even) Texas' election. Someone who ran an election ad that referred to Hillary as a slut in Spanish (even Edwards went after him for it).

Oh, okay. Wow, what a great endorsement.


by cath on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (2.00 / 1)

sigh you ignore what he represents

he got 2 cabinet posts from Bill, 2 of them, he is close with the clintons, Bill spent the superbowl with richardson trying to GET this endorsement

and even after the Wright scandal he still comes out for Obama, you really think he is the last one?

and remember its Hillary's campagin that doesnt want SDs endorsing they want them to do a wait and see (they are hoping he will implode before they pessure her out of the race)

but if Richardson didnt wait and endorsed its a sign, that the SDs are getting restless with this fighting and want a Nominee and will break to the leader.

Hillary wants more time to GET in the lead, so that they will break for her, but without a redo in FL/MI its a hard case to do


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (none / 0)

Yes, Bill Richardson is close to the Clinton's who really helped his career.  His endorsement of Obama tells you what kind of person he is.  Bill Richardson is for Bill Richardson.


by laternighter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (2.00 / 4)

This is sour grapes, IMO.

Bill Richardson was such an important endorsement that Bill Clinton tried wooing him on Super Bowl Sunday. Apparently the Clintons kept trying to get his endorsement after that.

Now that Richardson has endorsed Obama...he's 'not important'?

I wish people would stop taking their talking points from Mark Penn. It's embarrassing, and most people are smarter than that.


AnnMarie
by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:34:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A man who is also known for (none / 0)

grabbing his crotch in front of female colleagues.  Just a joke, ha ha, you know.  What a creep.


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:34:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (2.00 / 2)

Don't be bitter. Had Richardson endorsed HRC, we'd have had 10 recced diaries up telling us how he was reinforcing Hillary's "experience" and how the Wright "story" meant that Obama was unelectable (REZKO!! anyone? Memba him?).

When Murtha endorsed HRC, the Obama camp didn't belittle him. It's hard when your candidate is losing. I understand. Just don't attack Richardson for following his conscience; please. We are all rooting for America here in the end.  


What's wrong with mydd?
by pitaholereturns on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (2.00 / 2)

Don't think other superdelegates aren't paying attention to Penn and Carville on Richardson.  And I can't imagine it makes them think the Clintons respect them either.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (2.00 / 0)

The Obama camp didn't have to bad-mouth Murtha.  They had DailyKos and the Obama shills to do it for them.


by stefystef on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:21:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (none / 0)

When did the Clinton campaign badmouth Murtha? I heard bloggers do it, and quite wrongly, in my view.  But the Clinton campaign? If you could provide a link, I'd be most obliged. Thanks.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:39:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (none / 0)

Proof?  Links?

Thought not.


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:36:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (2.00 / 0)

Hillary has done A LOT during this week... many rallies and town meetings in PA and IN.  Bill was in NC.  Hillary polls numbers are very strong in those states.  Hillary's been working hard.  Just because the TV camera wasn't on her everyday, again, marginalizing her as usual.

Hillary didn't need to comment on the Wright debacle.  That is Obama's problem and should stay Obama's problem.


by stefystef on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:18:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm petulant and I'm having a frenzy (2.00 / 0)

Illinois Enema Bandit -Frank Zappa
by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:26:33 PM EST

all those college educated women. (2.00 / 0)

two things.

1) Obama/Zappa 08
2) I will defend anything you say from here on out, Zappaphiles unite!


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:36:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He Got Just What They All Need (1.00 / 1)

The Illinois Enema Bandit, I heard he's on the loose. I heard he's on the loose. Lord, the pitiful screams... Of all them college-educated women. He just be tyin' 'em up... They be all bound down. He just be... Pumpin' every one of 'em up with all of a bag full of... Illinois Enema Bandit Juice. The Illinois Enema Bandit, I heard it on the news, I heard it on the news..... (Apparently this song was structured on some classic blues formulas. God bless you Ray White!)
by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:18:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

08 (2.00 / 0)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aofsozIV GQ


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Having a Frenzy (2.00 / 0)

Actually that's from "Don't You Want A Man Like Me."
by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't this line from (none / 0)

Titties and Beer?

Oh shit I am old!  I can't remmeber.

But I thinkI can still recite Evelyn, A Modified Dog from Memory.  So that's sopmething.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:10:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back (2.00 / 5)

There has indeed been a turnaround since Tuesday, but it will be next week before we have a better sense of whether this is behind BO (for now).  It will come up again in the GE.

I started out neutral in this race, but have become increasingly turned off by the Clinton campaign.

The stance about voter disenfranchisement in MI and FL is just so disingenuous.  Candidates signed a pledge card affirming their knowledge that the vote wouldn't count.  People turned out anyway because of important down ballot issues.

My hope is that this ends soon--I do not want to see President McCain come next Jan.


by TRH3 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:28:02 PM EST

WHO is disingenuous? Obama ran (none / 0)

campaign ads and made appearances in FL, a state in the same position as MI.

And do you have ANY idea why Obama removed his name from the MI ballot but not the FL ballot?  Give that some thought.  Look it up.  Better yet, ask him.


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he was not (2.00 / 3)

allowed to remove his name because of a Florida law.

The only way to remove your name from the ballot in Florida is to drop out from the general election.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:36:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok that makes sense. So ... for (none / 0)

symmetry's sake, why not just leave your name on the MI ballot as well?  


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:37:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

because (2.00 / 5)

he pledged not to compete and not to participate in there. So did all the other candidates.

In fact Hillary, by keeping it on the ballot violated the spirit if not the letter of the pledge.

Symmetry sake? Thats a good reason...????


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:46:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yep, we are attacking obama for keeping his word.. (2.00 / 2)

it is amazing what the clintons can do to normal standards of conduct...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:14:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

.....And obeying the rules (2.00 / 1)

Someone who says if you obey the rules and keep your word then you deserve whatever you get, well that person is a sociopath.
by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:57:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: because (none / 0)

The "spirit of the pledge" was idiotic. It's one thing to penalize the states that went early by cutting their delegations in half as provided in the rules, quite another for the DNC and candidates to have been falling all over themselves to kiss the feet of the designated early primary states. The demand that candidates take their names off the ballot so Michigan voters wouldn't even have a chance to register their preferences was arrogant and idiotic.


by Alice in Florida on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:23:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so the (2.00 / 3)

question is why did she then pledge not to compete and PARTICIPATE in those primaries.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:26:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so the (none / 0)

Obama pledged the same thing, but they were both in Florida raising money, weren't they?
As I recall, Obama raised over a million dollars.
And both their names were on the FL ballot, so that would have violated the pledge as well.
As for Hillary, she said she did not want to alienate voters in Michigan, and the meaning of "particpiate" is intentionally vague in that pledge.

Clinton spokesman Kathleen Strand said the Clinton campaign "will honor the pledge and not campaign or spend money in any state that is not in compliance with the DNC, and Senator Clinton will honor the unique role of New Hampshire. But it's not necessary to withdraw her name because she is not going to campaign in any state, including Michigan, that violates the DNC calendar."

Clinton's decision appears to be based on a general election campaign strategy not to antagonize Michigan voters to the point that they may turn against her in the fall of 2008, especially if Michigan native Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee.

Dodd communications director Hari Sevugan said, "We are committed to the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire going first, and we signed the four-state pledge to hopefully prevail upon the DNC and the state parties to add clarity to that situation. However, it does not benefit any of us if we are the nominee to pull our name off the ballot and slight Michigan voters."


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:42:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: because (2.00 / 2)

But this is justification after the fact.

That's always a weak disguise for hypocritical action.


by Gimmeliberty on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fact is, Hillary was consistent and (none / 0)

Barack was inconsistent.  

When a person does the same thing in similar circumstances, it reflects adherence to a principle.  When a person does different things in similar circumstances, it indicates gamesmanship.

It's on record that Obama and Edwards pulled their names from MI to appease Iowa and NH who don't want to be upstaged.   They thought it would help them in those states, and VOILA!  It did help them in Iowa.


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:21:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he was not (none / 0)

So that's the same for Hillary.
So Hillary gets beat up for having her name on the ballot and Obama gets the pity party?

Just re-vote, darn it.  I wish the DNC would stop quivering in the presence of Obama.  


by stefystef on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:56:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHO is disingenuous? Obama ran (2.00 / 5)

The truth on why Obama didn't get his name off the FLorida ballot is apparently it was too late to do so.

Now the question you should ask yourself, is during the New Hampshire primary..Hillary said "Michigan didn't matter".

Apparently she flip flopped. Do we really want a candidate who changes her mind solely for political benefit all the time?


AnnMarie
by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:38:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

obama had no power to take his name off in florida (1.00 / 1)

the candidates on the ballot are selected by the secretary of state, not by the campaigns.  even had he dropped out, it would not have been removed...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:15:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHO is disingenuous? Obama ran (none / 0)

Actually, what she said is "this election they're having is not going to count for anything", which everyone already knew, since the delegates had been stripped from both states.

She says nothing about a revote, which is the only way to have the states' delegates restored:

A state party may be required by a vote of the DNC Executive Committee upon a
recommendation of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to adopt and implement an alternative
Party-run delegate selection system which does not conflict with these rules, regardless of any
provable positive steps the state may have taken.


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:00:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHO is disingenuous? Obama ran (2.00 / 5)

You'll have to show evidence that Obama made appearances in Florida.

I know for a fact Hillary went to Florida..even if it was for fundraisers only..before the FL primary.

Regarding Obamas ads in FL...the truth on that is his ads were part of a network that also included Georgia and Alabama..and South Carolina. So it makes sense that they would be viewed in Florida as well.

Lets be honest here. You don't like Obama..fine. But the complaints you have against him don't make any sense.


AnnMarie
by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Bounces back strongly" is a bit of (2.00 / 1)

hyperbole I'd say.  He's statistically in a dead heat with Clinton, after leading her by 8% several weeks ago.

On the other hand, after watching CNNs herioc efforts to deify the man over the past several days and demonize Hillary, I would never underestimate the ability of "The most trusted name in news" to swing public opinion and elections.


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:31:27 PM EST

Re: "Bounces back strongly" is a bit of (none / 0)

Yes don't underestimate them. BTW, you are going to be voting Dem come November right? Whomever the nominee may be. Right?


What's wrong with mydd?
by pitaholereturns on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Bounces back strongly" is a bit of (2.00 / 5)

I've voted for Obama, and even donated a little to his campaign. Here in WI we went for him like 58-41.

But if Hillary is the nominee, I'll vote for her. I may disapprove of her campaign, but my interest is voting for a Democrat to undo the damage of the past 8 years. Preferably that is Obama. If it is Hillary, I can live with that.

Thus I still believe any Democrat who threatens to vote for McCain if Obama wins is no better than those Nader voters.


AnnMarie
by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:45:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Bounces back strongly" is a bit of (2.00 / 3)

If someone voted for Nader this cycle as a protest to an Obama nomination, that would be (painfully) understandable if they were that opposed to his message and candidacy. OTOH a Democrat threatening to vote for McPain and actually following thru on it would stink simply of madness to put it mildly. I hope all those threats are just hubris; because the alternative narrative is just too scary to contemplate.


What's wrong with mydd?
by pitaholereturns on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:55:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shall I quote Michelle Obama and say (none / 0)

"I'd have to give it some thought.  Consider the behavior.  Consider the tone."

Should I be more loyal to the democratic party than the wife of someone who has benefited hugely from Democratic party largesse?


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:25:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shall I quote Michelle Obama and say (none / 0)

On what basis would Michelle Obama be obligate to campaign for Hillary? Remember this interview was done at a time when the Clinton campaign was going very negative against Obama (which was pretty much immediately after Iowa).

So regardless of the fact that I'm an Obama supporter, I frankly don't believe MO had to lay down and swear to almighty that she'd be batting 100 for Hillary.

In the end, if some sort of freak miracle happens and Hillary gets the nomination, BO, MO and the two Obama girls will be doing all they can to get Hillary elected. McPain in the whitehouse is one nightmare that this world will never wake up from. Always keep that thought in perspective.


What's wrong with mydd?
by pitaholereturns on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:53:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hm ... I thought the question was (none / 0)

"would you vote for HIllary" or "would you support Hillary".   Not "would you campaign for Hillary".    I wouldn't expect her to campaign for Hillary for the simple reason that she's the mom of two young girls.   And indeed, if that had been the question then referring to the girls would have been a gracious response to get herself off the hook.

Whatever the question, she took pains to point out that it's not clear to her that Hillary deserves her support.   "The tone" ???  Please.   And what about the "tone" Obama took with her early on:  "You're likeable enough, Hillary".


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:31:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hm ... I thought the question was (none / 0)

You thought wrong. That was not the question. The question was "could you see yourself working to support Hillary Clinton should she be the nominee?" (emphasis mine). So that's clearly different from MO not voting for or not "supporting" Hillary. As I said before, the Obamas would do everything in their power to ensure that if Hillary wins the nomination, she should win the presidency.

I don't know why you think MO should help her husband's rival on the campaign trail.

You think her answer should have been "well hell yeah! I think Hillary is the best thing since sliced bread and the only reason I'm supporting this buffoon husband of mine right now is cos' he agreed not leave wet towels on the bathroom floor. But as soon as we've kicked him to the curb, I'm endorsing HRC for president. And, oh yeah, GIRL POWER!!!"? Would that have been better?

She was inartful in her answer -- no arguments there. And before you go comparing her to Bill Clinton (as others have done), remember that she's not a politician and doesn't have the jujitsu of Bill "depends on what the definition of 'is' is" Clinton.

Peace be upon you.


What's wrong with mydd?
by pitaholereturns on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:52:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually that raises an interesting (none / 0)

question.  Has anyone asked Bill if HE "could you see yourself working to support Barack Obama should he be the nominee?"

I think you're right he might not sound all that gracious at this point either.    "Depends on what the definition of 'support' is."

:)  Peace


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:17:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup (none / 0)

I love how there is all this talk about Clinton's statement and what he did not say (talking about Obama when talking about his wife and McCain loving this country) but no one is really talking about what Obama DID say and that is that his grandmother who he says uttered racial slurs is a "typical white person".


by ericrsiny on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:44:27 PM EST

Re: Gallup (2.00 / 1)

This has been discussed ad nauseum in other diaries.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:57:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup (none / 0)

Even the TV talking heads were clearly embarrassed to do a panel on this.  They did it anyway, but they certainly didn't seem to enjoy it.


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup (2.00 / 3)

Yeah, because it was pretty rare for a white person during the 60's and 70's to occasionally believe a racial stereotype or ever in their entire life to say something negative about other races.

That's why it never happens today.


by Wes on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup (2.00 / 3)

Even Chris Wallace on Fox News had to reprimand his colleagues because this story was so dishonest and pathetic.  It's a sad day when he has more decency than some Democrats here.


by rfahey22 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:35:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 5)

Fact is, for Hillary to win she has to win the remaining primaries by landslide margins.....and that isnt going to happen. The DNC isnt goign to let this go to convention for the simple reason, if they do, the party will implode. They know it......Hillary will drop out before the convention and attempt to play and become the elder statesman, less she become known as the one who destroyed the party.


by adbct on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:03:59 PM EST

No doubt you're right. Obama gets a (none / 0)

hangnail and it's Hillary's fault.   It's clear throughout history that women are more easily blamed for stuff than men, simply because they can't mount a very intimidating defense for themselves.  They just kind of shut up and go away to hide.

It's a sad commentary on our species.


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:23:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

This appears a little bit optimistic, doesn't it?  Gallup goes up, Rasmussen goes down... that means nothing to the states individually, which is what matters.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:13:48 PM EST

Actually not (2.00 / 3)

Because it's over. I was in Hillary's camp for years ... but come on, it's time to back the GUARANTEED winner.


by Cleveland John on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey Jerome, phone's ringing (none / 0)

Jerome "Who is it?"
Cleveland John "They say they haven't seen you in a while"
Jerome "I'm not ready to talk yet"
Cleveland John "They say it's important"
Jerome "Tell them to call back later"
Cleveland John "Uhhhh, I really think you should answer"

POLL: Who called?


by Cleveland John on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

But  of  course  you're  right,  Jerome.    

The  SUSA  electoral  maps  are  out  now   (SUSA  was  the only   pollster  to  get  New  Hampshire  right,   and is  the most  consistently  correct).  They  have  a  national poll,  but  have  turned  their  attention  to current state  polls    and what   the  electoral  map   for  November  looks  like:  

John  McCain   288
Barak Obama  238
(Tied  12)

Hillary  Clinton  294
John  McCain   231
(Tied  13)  

It  appears  that  the  Wright  flap  now  shows  Obama   behind   McCain in  crucial  swing  states  like   Ohio,  Florida, and Missouri,  and  that  many  previously-Obama  voters   are  now   experiencing   buyer's  remorse.    

Obama  has  tanked  in   several crucial  swing  states,  and  now  carries  fewer   electoral  votes  for November  than  McCain.    

Superdelegates  will  certainly  be  looking  at  THESE  numbers  now,  and not  at   useless national  polls.  

For  a  November  win,   electoral  votes  are  what  matters,   and it  appears   Obama  will  be   beaten    in  the  general.

McCain  is  also pulling  most of  the  Independents,   too.      

Not  looking  good  for  the  Obama  campaign.


by auntmo on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Meaningless information (none / 0)

Obama is our candidate. He was my 4th choice for the dems, Hillary was first. There's nothing to do now but back our guy.


by Cleveland John on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meaningless information (none / 0)

Not  meaningless,  dear.    

But  nice  try.  


by auntmo on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:51:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't mean to be trite (2.00 / 3)

but really, have you examined what Hillary would need to do to get the nomination? Her only winning scenario is convincing the SDs and the public that the primaries were a joke.


by Cleveland John on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't mean to be trite (none / 0)

Neither candidate has won enough to make it on pledged delegates alone, which means superdelegates are going to decide either way. Obama needs them just as much as Clinton...he had his chance to clinch it in the primaries, but he got cocky and gave Clinton the opening to fight back.

No matter what anyone says, this race is going to continue until the scheduled primaries are over--Obama's people need to deal with that. It's so rare that most of these late-primary states get heard at all, we should let them have their moment in the sun before the race is declared "over."


by Alice in Florida on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meaningless information (none / 0)

Obsolete is a better word.

Seven and a half months before the GE, and this information is predictive?

Pull the other one it has got bells on.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:29:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 3)

Out now?  They were out previously too you know, right?  This isn't the first set of those polls from SUSA, and of course the last set of maps from them looked totally different.  So why the insistence that they won't swing back in the wake of the speech and endorsement?  Why the insistence that the next several months of campaigning won't change a thing?  

PS.  What's up with the post formatting?  You really need every single sentence on a separate line?  And two spaces between every word?


by Brillobreaks on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:15:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

It's not that big a bounce.
Where are they polling?  Not PA or VA for sure, because Obama is losing traction there.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/west_virginia/west_vir ginia_democratic_presidential_primary

Don't put so much on those polls.  It is see-sawing right now.


by stefystef on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:40:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

Rasmussen  did  a  poll on  the  effects  of  the   Wright  fiasco:  

58%   disapproved  of  Obama's  minister
8%   viewed him   favorably

56%  said  they  were  LESS  likely  to vote  for   Obama  because  of  Wright.

73  %   of  voters  say   Wright's  comments    were   racially   divisive.

58%   of  African Americans   felt  the  same.  

THESE  numbers   can be  seen reflected  in SUSA's   lousy  electoral  numbers  in  their  state-by-state polls  mentioned  above.    

People  who  voted  FOR  him  in  the previous  primaries/caucuses    have  changed  their  minds,  and it  is  shown  in  the  SUSA  electorals.  

Superdelegates  will   clearly  be  looking  at  those  numbers   in  terms of  November.


by auntmo on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 1)

That hasn't stopped you from making similarly breathless posts when things swing Hillary's way, has it?


by Brillobreaks on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:17:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Campaign: 99% Chance Singer Shills for Us (none / 0)

March 22, 2008, Boulder, CO.:

Bradley Smith, 19, a student at CU Boulder and a volunteer for the local Obama for President Campaign, claimed to a classmate while tapping a keg that there's a 99% chance that Jonathan Singer is a shill for the Obama campaign. David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, refused to comment on the allegations. Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, released a memo today on the campaign's Web site which analyzed Singer's posts on myydd.com over the last year. Using sophisitcated regression analysis, he writes that "the Obama campaign's reliance on elite bloggers continues to be demonstrated by Mr. Singer's posts. Our models indicate that after 10 straight losses by Obama to Hillary, Mr. Singer will write a post claiming that Hillary should drop out because Obama won Mississippi and Wyoming, states which are vital to his General Election strategy. And that if Bush can disenfranchise voters in Florida so can we."


by JFK464 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:29:09 PM EST

Wrong About Wright? (2.00 / 5)

I am totally disgusted.  I just learned of a blog about Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Trinity Church called http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com and I feel as though I can no longer trust my favorite news sources CNN and MSNBC.  Apparently the endless loop of hate from Rev. Wright was a quote from a white US Ambassador named Peck and the whole sermon iwithin context was logical, introspective and get this, loving(albeit fiery).  I am so disgusted with American media, I expect this from Fox, but not CNN and MSNBC.  I now, actually feel sorry for Rev. Wright, as he is being dumped on for purely political gain.  Somehow, I don't think God is going to like this.

Please visit http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/ and you will probably feel as disgusted as I do, I feel responsible for helping to get the truth out!  Of course, I also learned that Hannity is responsible for outing this story.  Surprise!


by bwv on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:48:35 PM EST

Re: Wrong About Wright? (2.00 / 4)

The best part is that the Ambassador was a Reagan appointee-you think Hannity or Limbaugh will inform their listeners?


by Roberta on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:04:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong About Wright? (none / 0)

Reminds me of a Jon Stewart comment (during the Pope/Islam controversy last year): "A 13th century Bezentine emperor said that your mother was a w hore." How does it matter whether the anti-american comments were from a white or a black man? The fact is that Rev. White is way out on the fringe -- and BO sat there listening to that stuff just because it was a powerful church and he wanted to get ahead. CNN and MSN are so lopsided and pro-BO (watch SNL) that if even they reported this stuff we should be open to the slight possibility that there may be a grain of truth in what they are saying - for a change.


by Monster Man on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:12:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, for once CNN investigated and (none / 0)

they could find no record of this supposed Peck speech any time within the time frame of Wright's defamatory remarks.


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:29:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post-Wright Low (none / 0)

I am a Hillary man so this isnt good news . As Ive stated all along the swiftboat smearers will have a field day with Obama and Americans will be afraid to vote for him. Enter McSame.
:(
by ksecus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:48:52 PM EST

I know it's coming too (2.00 / 2)

we'll need to fight harder. I was a Hillary Man til last month. Looks like you're ready to roll over if Obama's the nominee -not me.


by Cleveland John on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:55:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know it's coming too (2.00 / 4)

I will not roll over, and vote for a republican, never have, never will..
I have been a Democrat and voted straight ticket  before you were a glint in Daddys eye.

by ksecus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:14:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know it's coming too (2.00 / 1)

Thank you.


by Cleveland John on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:20:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about mention of the other poll? (2.00 / 0)

Smart post.
And you are not lowly, my friend.
You are a good Democrat.  Stand proud and say "I'm a Hillary supporter".

You are all right, baby! LOL


by stefystef on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:28:49 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

Well, there's always a first time to not vote Democrat.  Everybody is talking about one of Pastor Wright's sermons being just a quote from a white ambassador, while the truth is that there have been dozens of hate-filled sermons. If it had just been one of them, Obama wouldn't have "strongly condemned" his pastors' remarks. But Obama has figured a way to get some spin on it - just say he has heard some of his pastors' wrong remarks, but don't say exactly what he heard, and let his shills come out with a lie, a claim that the whole thing is just a quote from a white ambassador. Don't answer the questions about the life-time achievement award for Louis Farrakhan for all his hate-mongering, racist, kill or enslave all the whites, convert every one else to Islam, destroy Israel speeches. Compare your Pastor preaching hate-filled anti-American sermons to your white Grandmother making racist comments that bothered you, and say that she's typical of all white Americans. In desperation, tell Gov Richardson that you really need his endorsement now - what'd Obama offer for that distraction, the VP slot?
And of course count on your followers not to see what a racist you are.
As for me, I'm from Florida. After years, we finally convinced our legislators that we wanted a primary that counted - even if we only got half the delegates, we would rather get half as many delegates that counted as double the delegates after the race had been decided or after the candidates we wanted had been knocked out by earlier primaries.  Democrats believe that every one has a right to have their vote count, but the so-called Democrats in Washington and the candidates made a deal to punish us for fighting for our rights.  And I'm truly surprised at the number of so-called Democrats here who are willing to condemn us for our choice, and to go along with the dirty politics.  The only way for Obama to win Florida in November?  Do the honorable thing now, while it would seem to hurt him, apologize for his earlier sin on our vote, and demand that at least half the Florida delegates be seated, to vote as we directed them in our primary.
John Sampson
by floridapatriot on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:23:19 AM EST

reply to J. Sampson-If you can listen to Obama ... (2.00 / 4)

... and not be absolutely certain that he has none of the negative qualities you ascribe to Rev. Wright, there's something very drastically wrong with your ability to judge a person's character.

Really, people. If there's one thing you can trust, it's your own ability to sense anger and insincerity. Anger is the most impossible emotion to hide - ther's always a telltale giveaway and you will always be able to sense it. Listen to his voice. Look at his face. Play the Philadelphia speech sentence by sentence. Barack Obama does not have an angry or racist bone in his body.


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:56:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: reply to J. Sampson-If you can listen to Obama (none / 0)

"Listen to his voice. Look at his face. Play the Philadelphia speech sentence by sentence. Barack Obama does not have an angry or racist bone in his body."

(I just signed up to comment, though I have come around here to read before. I just had to reply to your comments. I hope you don't feel I'm picking on you).

I think it is too much of a stretch for any of us to say that candidate A or B has been completely spared the bruises of racism--and by "bruises" I mean a level of acceptance of it. Like it or not, all of us have internalized some degree of racism, as the majority of humanity lives in society and thus is not insulated from negative (as well as some positive) attitudes which includes racism. Barack Obama is not an exception by any means. It would be on everyone's interest to try and keep a high degree of objectivism about it so we all can have a meaningful exchange on race and race relations.

Barack Obama's speech post-Wright did not strike me personally as brilliant or conciliatory, nor did it strike me as the most eloquent and thoughtful "conversation" about race and race relations. I was thus not surprised that in subsequent interviews he continued to sacrifice his own grandmother, pointing out the times she might have displayed seemingly racist behavior, or uttered racist comments.

This type of behavior seems very immature, and is at odds with the supposed  ethos of his campaign: ethics, post race, a world united, etc. For a man who supposedly holds himself to a high degree of ethics (while supposedly the Clintons have none), to use his family's mistakes about race for his own political gain; to refuse to sever connections with Wright after his unabashedly racist and offensive comments were aired, something Obama himself acknowledges to be true; to try to place the blame on the Clintons by releasing a photo of Bill and Wright together; all of that strikes me as a sad statement that Obama too is a politician like any other. Not "fresh," but stale. Same old, same old...

I am aware that Obama supporters will object to my comments, and might even report me as a troll. If it happens, so be it, though I hope myDD readers and mods will be open-minded enough to read my words and not retaliate.

Full disclosure: I was an Edwards supporter (still would be had he not dropped out), and now I lean Clinton. After all of these months of primaries and caucuses, I still am unable to understand Obama's appeal. I have, from early own, been skeptical of his candidacy--at first because of his lack of experience, and later on because of how he ran his campaign...


by Minina on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:29:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: reply to J. Sampson-If you can listen to Obama (2.00 / 1)

Ok, this is the return to the "grandmother under the bus meme" that I find flat wrong.  I explained why here:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/22/0 443/14134/78#78

But to repeat it:

Ok, the "grandmother under the bus" meme is getting old, particularly because it doesn't make sense.

Let's look at this closely: Obama's statements about his grandmother aren't new.  He made them in his book, Dreams from my Father (which his grandmother loved, by the way), over a decade ago.  My understanding of the "throw under the bus" notion is that the claim is that Obama raised a new story about his grandmother for political expedience.  But anyone who read his book would know that he didn't: Obama wrote about his grandmother and her racial views in his book over a decade ago.  So had he simply read from his decade-old book (rather than saying them anew) when making all these statements about his grandmother, would he have been "throwing her under the bus"?

Now, I have a feeling that despite the facts, you're going to dispute it, but I suppose I can't do anything about that.


by barath on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:43:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Prediction (none / 0)

Okay, maibe I should throw my opinion into it, not that it will do any good.

If, as it tends to become more and more probable Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, the following thing is going to happen.

Some organizations (you know who they are) are going to create a nice little montage video, on this video, you will first see Obama without his flag pin, then they will show a few photographs of him without his hand on his heart, then Michel Obama telling us that she never was pround of her country before, and finally Rv Wright yelling that America got what it deserved in 911 and the serie will culminate with "god damn America". Simultaneously (superimposed? In parallel?) in the background you will see the twin tower falling, courageous fire fighter rushing in, families of the victims crying... etc..

And this short ad will be haired ad nauseum in each swing states and beyond.

Obama will try to defend himself, but his best and only defense involves race, and those guys will say "It's is not about race, it is about patriotism", "YOU are talking about race", "YOU are the racist", "We don't see no race"... etc... etc...

Now if you think that Obama can overcome this in a general election, you go right ahead and vote for him.

Me? I stopped believing in Santa a long time ago, so I won't.


by TaiChiMaster on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:51:38 AM EST

run, run for your lives!!! (2.00 / 2)

hide under the blanket, and whimper.

I on the other hand wills stand up and fight.

I could you know tell you that.

If Hillary gets the nomination GOP will run adds reminding every repub of the CLinton years,and that will boost their turn out and the will win. I can come up with tons of hypothetical!!!


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:34:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Cowardly prediction (2.00 / 5)

You're advocating what has lost us election after election - making our decisions about leadership based on our fears of the Republican noise machine.

It's a losing strategy.  NO matter who or what, they will find something and they will attack.  If Hillary wins it will be her upcoming fraud trial they will use, and that's not something someone she knows said, that's something that she and Bill DID.  That will be huge fodder for Republicans should Hillary win.

We have to stop being afraid and letting the rightwing do this to us over and over.  We can't let them define our leaders and choose them for us, by making us afraid.  

We need a compelling message that deserves to be supported by voters, and we need it to be delivered by a gifted communicator, one who is not afraid of Republicans and who can bring people from all sides together.

Hillary's whole modis operende is predicated upon her fear of Republicans.  She says she's tough, but the truth is that her fear causes her to triangulate, hedge and obfuscate rather than stand strong.  She acts out of fear.  She attempts to instill fear.

That's what we've had.  It's a recipe for disaster.  We need something new.  We need to say "fuck you" to the Republican noise machine, instead of trying to arrange ourselves to their liking, like frightened children.


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:25:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cowardly prediction (2.00 / 2)

great comment.  I live in Missouri and am surrounded by Republicans, maybe that is why I do not cry when I think one is going to say something mean to me.  They are people just like everyone else and you would be surprised how open they can be if you just sit down and talk to them.  


by Xris on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:28:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cowardly prediction (none / 0)

Cowardly prediction?
If that's how you see it.

Like I said, you go right ahead (not that you would want my permission). But don't go complain when the old man is sworn into office.

The democrats had a great candidate, he was called John edward, his message was right on and he had double digit lead over any contender in general polling.

The media starved him of coverage and YOU (I have to assume that you are a democratic suporter) starved him of money.

And now we are left with two weak candidates and about to select the weakest of the two.

Great job!


by TaiChiMaster on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:40:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cowardly prediction (2.00 / 3)

I thought Tai Chi was supposed to be centering and calming?

The ebb and flow of the universe is unrelenting and pure. Just as the moons swirl the planets swirl the suns swirl the galaxies, so to the truth that there is NO WAY IN HELL that America is going to vote for a third Bush term amidst the hated, endless war, recession and all the other Bushrape haunting our nation.

Not going to happen.

If gas is still 100 a barrel, if home owners are seeing their values drop and all manner of other kitchen-table issues continue to rise, McCain will lose in embarrassing and hard-to-witness ways. If all of those things miraculously get better in the next 20 minutes, the amount of time it takes for that to be felt down the line will mean McCain loses only pitiably. McCain could personally revive Hussein, kill him again, and empregnate an aircraft carrier with his warrior sperm, and yet, still, maybe carry the south and Idaho.

Democrats could be fielding Biden and win. Gravel. A giant tub of actual gravel. McCain would still lose.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:18:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cowardly prediction (2.00 / 1)

I was an Edwards supporter and the reason Edwards lost had nothing to do with the media. He campaigned effectively in those first small states where retail politics is still possible and his message just did not catch on with a majority of the electorate, neither did Hillary's experience message. Obama had both the message that appealed to where the electorate is right now and the organizational skills.

I think Edwards has had a real positive impact as both Clinton and Obama have adopted a lot of his rhetoric and his positions which is great.

I'll start paying attention to national polls in the Fall when the candidates are going head to head nationally. If the national polls meant anything Giuliani and Clinton would already have the nomination.


by hankg on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:53:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree, except for the part about it (none / 0)

having nothing to do with the media.

In mid January when Edwards was falling behind among Democrats but consistently beating both Clinton and Obama in "head to head" contests across parties (e.g., Edwards-McCain), the major polling firms inexplicably stopped including him in the head to head polls.  I can show you the e-mails I sent to rasmussen, gallup, LA Times, and other pollsters BEGGING them to keep Edwards in the list.   And likewise the MSM just didn't talk about him.  

IMO the media have stolen this election, first by ignoring Edwards and second by dissing Hillary.  I"m really quite angry about it.


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:26:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree, except for the part about it (none / 0)

I was an Edwards supporter, too.  I think his campaign handled the media problems very badly, and it was upsetting, because he never really recovered from the NYTimes article and the haircut thing.  He could have, if his campaign had responded more astutely.  But they responded with their feelings instead of their brains, and that is what happened to John Edwards.  

At this point, I think it's time to bring in some new blood, not just to the White House, but to the Democratic Party.  

Now I'm glad we'll have Obama as our candidate.  Since Edwards dropped out, and I took some time to get over my anger - Edwards was supposed to be the one to save us, not Obama, it was Johnny's turn! - I've read his books, listened to his FULL speeches, interviews... and I think he's a remarkable leader.  

I had to overcome my tendency to stick with the underdog, of course.... but, I finally did.  Now I like Obama.  But I'll vote for the nominee, no question.  Hillary has a lot going for her, too.


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cowardly prediction (none / 0)

Hillary's MO isn't based on her fear of Republicans, it's based on her experience with them.
Obama's weakest point, IMO, is his idea that we can work with Republicans and still get things like universal health care passed, or getting out of Iraq. We haven't been able to work with Republicans on any of these issues, and when we do, we get screwed.
Hillary has always stood strong, even during the worst they could throw at her.
It's one of the reasons that I support her, she's a fighter.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:24:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cowardly prediction (2.00 / 1)

Ah, still stuck in "it's all the Republicans' fault!  Waaaah!  They're mean and evil!  Waaahh!"

HIllary doesn't know how to compromise, she knows how to dominate, and that's the problem.  She wouldn't even compromise with her own party on health care, and they abandoned her in droves.  

Not that I hate Hillary or anything like that.  I like her, actually.  Originally she was my second choice after Edwards.   But at this point, she just can't win, and I think her kitchen sink strategy against Obama at this point is an ugly exercise in anger and frustration that is wasting our donor base's money and our party's time.  We should be focused on McCain.  

Also, the fact that HIllary refuses to release her tax returns from any year but this campaign year, the fact that she won't release their library donor list, the fact that she won't release any of her earmark requests, the fact that the Clinton's are being sued by a long-time friend, supporter and major fundraiser for fraud.... these things finally gave me pause.

You're wrong, by the way.  When we work with Republicans, as Obama did recently on the gov't transparency act, we win.  There are lots of other examples.  


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:15:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Bounces Back (2.00 / 2)

The polls will almost assuredly see-saw more than once between now and November.  I am pleased to see Obama bounce back so quickly.  I think Obama's speech was both necessary and moving.  I will say he does have one thing in common with his former pastor, they both can speak the truth, Barack just does it so much more tactfully and eloquently.  

I have never heard a politician just come right out there and lay it all on the table, we do hold prejudices about race, about religion, about social status, prejudices we are unwilling to admit or talk about.  Now maybe we will have that opportunity.  

I have been so impressed with this man's character and integrity since I first saw him four years ago at the Democratic Convention.  And if for some reason he is not elected, I think that would be an absolute travesty because this opportunity will not present itself again for a very long time.  

Instead, it will be a sign that this country is content to live with its prejudices, content to distrust, content to remain separate societies, content to continue living in fear.  

This time, I sincerly pray that hope finally trumps fear.    


by Rick in Eugene on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:55:08 AM EST

Just because YOU have never heard (2.00 / 1)

a politician "lay it on the table" doesn't mean it hasn't happened.  See for example, BILL CLINTON's speech to the Million Man March in 1995.  He laid plenty on the table, and he wasn't forced by near-scandal to do so, but instead as a sitting President he chose to go and speak to 1 million black men at and event organized by Louis Farrakhan.  And this came from the heart.   Please, Obama people, educate yourselves:

"Abraham Lincoln reminded us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. When divisions have threatened to bring our house down, somehow we have always moved together to shore it up. My fellow Americans, our house is the greatest democracy in all human history. And with all its racial and ethnic diversity, it has beaten the odds of human history. But we know that divisions remain, and we still have work to do. (Applause.)

The two worlds we see now each contain both truth and distortion. Both black and white Americans must face this, for honesty is the only gateway to the many acts of reconciliation that will unite our worlds at last into one America.

White America must understand and acknowledge the roots of black pain. It began with unequal treatment first in law and later in fact. African Americans indeed have lived too long with a justice system that in too many cases has been and continues to be less than just. (Applause.) The record of abuses extends from lynchings and trumped up charges to false arrests and police brutality. The tragedies of Emmett Till and Rodney King are bloody markers on the very same road.

Still today too many of our police officers play by the rules of the bad old days. It is beyond wrong when law-abiding black parents have to tell their law-abiding children to fear the police whose salaries are paid by their own taxes. (Applause.)

And blacks are right to think something is terribly wrong when African American men are many times more likely to be victims of homicide than any other group in this country; when there are more African American men in our corrections system than in our colleges; when almost one in three African American men in their 20s are either in jail, on parole or otherwise under the supervision of the criminal justice system -- nearly one in three. And that is a disproportionate percentage in comparison to the percentage of blacks who use drugs in our society. Now, I would like every white person here and in America to take a moment to think how he or she would feel if one in three white men were in similar circumstances.

And there is still unacceptable economic disparity between blacks and whites. It is so fashionable to talk today about African Americans as if they have been some sort of protected class. Many whites think blacks are getting more than their fair share in terms of jobs and promotions. That is not true. That is not true. (Applause.)

The truth is that African Americans still make on average about 60 percent of what white people do; that more than half of African American children live in poverty. And at the very time our young Americans need access to college more than ever before, black college enrollment is dropping in America.

On the other hand, blacks must understand and acknowledge the roots of white fear in America. There is a legitimate fear of the violence that is too prevalent in our urban areas; and often by experience or at least what people see on the news at night, violence for those white people too often has a black face.

It isn't racist for a parent to pull his or her child close when walking through a high-crime neighborhood, or to wish to stay away from neighborhoods where innocent children can be shot in school or standing at bus stops by thugs driving by with assault weapons or toting handguns like old west desperados. (Applause.)

It isn't racist for parents to recoil in disgust when they read about a national survey of gang members saying that two-thirds of them feel justified in shooting someone simply for showing them disrespect. It isn't racist for whites to say they don't understand why people put up with gangs on the corner or in the projects, or with drugs being sold in the schools or in the open. It's not racist for whites to assert that the culture of welfare dependency, out-of-wedlock pregnancy and absent fatherhood cannot be broken by social programs unless there is first more personal responsibility. (Applause.)

The great potential for this march today, beyond the black community, is that whites will come to see a larger truth -- that blacks share their fears and embrace their convictions; openly assert that without changes in the black community and within individuals, real change for our society will not come."


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:13:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama (2.00 / 1)

This rather pathetic attempt by the MSM, which itself OWNS the polling outfits, to restore Senator Obama (certain to be a landslide loser in the fall) so that the #1 objective of the MSM--destroying the Clintons, is yet accomplished, will get nowhere.

We Clinton supporters have seen it all before.  Obama was supposed to win big in New Hampshire.  ALL polling firms said so, and ALL were wrong.

Obama was supposed to carry Nevada.  ALL pundits said the Culinary Workers Union was critical, and ALL pundits were wrong.

Obama was supposed to win California.  Zogby said he was surging.  Obama was clobbered in California.

Obama was supposed to carry the Texas primary.  Gallup had the candidates, at worst, tied for Obama's benefit.  Clinton carried Texas, really, no sweat--four digits, which meant overcoming a double-digit loss that Zogby's group forecasted.

Obama was supposed to be surging in Ohio.  Not even close.  Obama did terribly in my native Ohio, losing 83 of 88 counties, and an easy double-digit loss statewide.

The Kennedy endorsements and the Obama South Carolina win were supposed to work in Florida.  Floridians gave poor Obama a meagre 33% of their vote.  And yes indeed, everybody who cast ballots in Florida knew very well whom they were voting for.  It is only in Obama World, that this fact does not register.

No, in the end, voters in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and the like, aren't going to put much stock in a speech attempting to rationalize a candidate's twenty-year relationship with a pastor who damns White America.  Obama is, very much, a product of the Pastor Wright, and most White Americans won't be buying it.

After being pelted by the entire MSM, pundits, and pollsters all year writing her epitaph, Senator Clinton is still standing tall.

The Clintons have never needed surrogates, newspapers, pundits, and even people they have themselves built up to stay loyal to them.  

Bill Clinton was written off for dead by pundits early into the Monica affair.  George Stephanopoulos, the first of several Judas Iscariots in the Clinton Campaign, argued for the "I" word--and so the ever Clinton-hating sounded the dream-beat for his impeachment.

Many a pundit thought he'd be gone in a week.  Instead, he stood firm indeed, continued to guide America through its longest reign of peace and prosperity ever, and leave office with the the longest reign of high approval of any president since JFK.

So, one should truly feel sorry for Gallup and company, still trying to salvage Obama, who hasn't won a single blue state outside his own Illinois. And who hasn't won a major state outside Illinois and the pitiful near-draw of Missouri.

And who, having been proclaimed the "star" by everybody from Bill Richardson to the Kennedys, couldn't win with Lations anywhere, and is a lost cause in the Kennedy home turf of Massachusetts.  One Obama type--Governor Patrick, with his dismal approval--is more than enough for Massachusetts voters in a lifetime.

Bill Richardson was probably the single worst presidential candidate the Democrats have ever had.  The usually fawning-for-Obama blogosphere almost universally thought he had all the allure of a stiff board.  And this is the man who is supposed to help Obama with Latinos?  What in fact is quite true is that the Clintons themselves are far more popular in New Mexico than ever is or can be Bill Richardson.

We Clinton fans know that Hillary will blow Obama away in Pennsylvania--the last major state, meaning that, aside from Illinois, Obama will be 0 for 0 in blue state America and with his meagre win in Missouri as only his claim on a big state aside from his native Illinois.  

That is truly a dismal reason for Blue America to have him as the nominee of their party.  Red State America may be his turf, but come the fall, Red State America is far more likely to be the McCain column.

So, of course Wright's anti-White commentaries made the Obama candidacy a non-starter in the fall.  But for the MSM, the 2008 campaign was never about Obama.  It was all about stopping the Clintons, and Obama was the tool.

Gallup's going to bat for the moribund Obama came as no suprise.  A week ago last Sunday the pollsters said it had little impacted his campaign.  Then the blogosphere was suddenly full of those Wright videos and the pollsters had to appear to live in reality, at least for a time.

We Clinton fans knew that both the MSM, their pundits and pollsters, would again sing the praises of Obama after a speech that working-class America (the Democratic base) was unlikely to have seen, much less have been influenced by.

This is the latest attempt by the MSM to resurrect Obama and hope to stop the still standing Hillary Clinton.

Sorry, Gallup, your song-and-dance and polling for your man hasn't worked in blue state America all year.  And it won't now.

The Barack Obama camp had better be praying for a comfortable win in North Carolina.  They're going to need something to comfort them after their inevitable Pennsylvania blow-out.

We in Ohio were told by pollsters that Obama was surging, and at best, Obama would lose by four points.  We knew better, and Obama was trounced.  As he shall be in Pennsylvania, regardless of those hopelessly lying pollsters.

Reality to planet Obama: my entire family, and all my close neighbors, not any of whom have ever voted Republican, are all going into the McCain camp this fall, if Obama is the nominee.  The Wright-tainted Obama scares us that much.

One doesn't have to read pollsters.  Not any more.  

Obama can't win in blue state America primaries, aside from his native Illinois.  He can't win in major state America primaries, aside from his native Illinois and that near-draw that was Missouri.  And he can't win in key bell-weathers like Michigan and Florida.  His camp itself must be certain of this last fact--after all, they can only acquire the nomination by disenfranchising both of those voting groups.

So, how yawningly predictable, Gallup is back on Obama's side.

Nobody else but those living on Planet Obama take much stock in pollsters or pundits any more.

For in spite of fawning pundits, newspapers, Democratic Party establishment, and skewered pollsters, most of the Democratic base (save for the obviously proud African-Americans) never bought into Product Obama.

If Senator Obama is the nominee, expect a Democratic landslide defeat that will make the McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis losses actually look good in comparison.

Of course that doesn't concern Gallup or Zogby or any other pollster.  Right now, they still haven't stopped the Clintons.  And they are  worried.  Plenty worried.  Because Obama is going to try to be the nominee of Blue America having lost almost all of Blue America.  A lethal candidate for the fall campaign indeed.


by lambros on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:25:21 AM EST

Whoa, I LOVE it. What a great, fiery (none / 0)

comment!   I agree with you 100%.  My question is this:  Why do the media hate the Clintons?  I agree with you that seem to.  Or at least they love Obama a LOT more.   But ... why?  

Is it the age-old hatred that mediocrity feels for greatness?   Is it that they're afraid with Clinton in office he will have some scores to settle with them, and settle them he will?   He doesn't hesitate to tell it like it is (the famous Chris Matthews interview, the "shame on you" in SC).   Is it that they're actually Republicans in Dem clothing and know that only Obama is beatable in the Fall?   Or is it some need to fall over backwards in support of an African American candidate?  Or are Axelrod and company simply the biggest media geniuses to hit the scene in a generation, able to manipulate punditry opinion at will?

Even the staunchest Obama supporter cannot deny that there is a disconnect between the media's treatment of Obama and his actual electoral performance (as you pointed out so well).   I guess they could claim that the media are well educated and know the issues, whereas the American people are stupid.   But that doesn't wash because the media are actually pretty ignorant of the issues when it comes to what Bill accomplished, when it comes to doing their homework on Hillary's accomplishments, when it comes to understanding who, in fact, IS playing the race card in this campaign, and other matters.

I suspect that entire dissertations will be written on this topic, in coming years.  Thanks for the great post.


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama (none / 0)

"The Wright-tainted Obama scares us that much."

Um, what the hell? How are you scared of Obama because of Wright?

The Wright scandal has nothing to do with the economy, so he can't have scared you about future economic woes if Obama wins, and it doesn't have anything to do with foreign policy, so it can't have scared you in that respect either...so in what way are you scared of Obama because of Wright?

I call bullshit.


by Aris Katsaris on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:46:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

50% (2.00 / 1)

What I find interesting about the polls is Obama had just hit 50% in one poll when his ratings dropped precipitously after the Wright thing.  The point was, however, that they dropped and hers did not rise accordingly.  The undecideds just went up.  

Her ratings don't seem to vary over the long term, they seem stuck in the low to middle 40s.  His may fall, but they also rise. She seems to have a stable but unchanging base of support.

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008 /president/us/democratic_presidential_no mination-191.html#polls


by mady on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:12:00 AM EST

Re: 50% (none / 0)

Nope.   The  undecideds   didn't  go up.  

The  Independents  and Reagan  Democrats  Obama  claimed  he  could   re-capture,   moved  immediately  to  McCain.    

McCain's   ratings  went  up,   in   most  crucial   swing  states.  

Obama   lost  white  men,  disillusioned  youth  vote,      and   Independents.  

If  Hillary  takes  core  Democrats,  then  all  Obama's  got  left  is   AA's  and  liberals.  

He  has  lost  the   middle,  and thus,  the  general  election.  


by auntmo on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:35:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right about that. Obama's (none / 0)

"Wright" week would have been the perfect time for Hillary to get out there and push some positive images of herself and her policies.   Either her campaign was too numb-skulled to do it, or the media were too frenzied over Obama to call her back.   Either is possible.   Sigh.

I think when the history books are written on this one, sexism is going to be the theme.   Sad that we haven't come all that far in the 40 years since Huey Newton said "Sure, women have an important position in the Black power movement:  prone".   At the time I thought he was confusing prone and "supine" but I now think he probably knew exactly which one he meant.


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:21:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: (none / 0)

Chery picking Gallup without also talking about PPP, SUSA, RASS and others (which all show Obama falling) is painting a false picture.


by americanincanada on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:01:03 PM EST

Re: Gallup: (none / 0)

americanincanada, you make a good point.

There are 3 polls that started or came after 3/18
Gallup, Ras and Fox.

the Gallup (conducted 3/19 - 3/21) shows Obama +3 (Clinton led by 2 in the 3/18-3/20 poll)

Fox (conducted 3/19-3/20) shows a tie (Clinton lead by 2 the in the 3/18-3/19 poll)

Rasmussen (conducted 3/18-3/21) shows Clinton leading by 2

So, two of the 3 post-3/18 polls (Gallup + FOX) show Obama going from a 2 point deficit to a tie or two point lead.

The third (Rasmussen) shows Clinton with a 2 point lead, although Rasmussen is the only one of the three that has not conducted a second post-3/18 poll.


by poserM on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:56:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

Yeah, I don't think there will be any fall out at all just because Obama's spiritual adviser and member of his campaign is on video screaming "God Damn USA" and "USKKKA", etc. It won't stick. People in middle America don't care. They see what Obama is really about. And he's about inspiration. And hope. He wants to have a conversation about race with them, and they are all ears.

Oh sure, there might be a few Americans that question that the fact that he's got one mentor who is on trial for corruption, and another who appears to hate, or shall we say, intensely dislike the country, but don't give it a second thought.

Those folks in Michigan and Florida are backing him more strongly than ever. And you can bet they'll be on his side come November.

It's gonna be a cake walk.


by cc on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:06:21 PM EST

Bill and Hillary on trial for fraud (2.00 / 1)

HOw do you feel about the fact that Bill and Hillary are on trial for fraud?  That the person who has accused them is a long-time friend, supporter and mentor, Hillary's biggest fundraiser in her 2000 Senate race?  That there is loads of documentary evidence to support the case?

The Clintons have been keeping this trial pushed back, working frantically to prevent it from becoming an issue in the primary.

How do you think being on trial for fraud against a longtime friend and major fundraiser will play out if Hillary wins the nomination?  

Republicans are keeping quiet about it now in the hope that Democrats will nominate HIllary, but as someone who lives with Republican party insiders, I can tell you that they are chomping at the bit.  

Democrats would be wise to inform PA voters of the truth of this, and let Dem voters decide whether they are more "afraid" of a man whose former pastor is angry at whites or a woman who defrauded her own fundraiser out of 1.2 million dollars.  

This is not an associate who said something inflamatory - this is the Clintons.  And the case looks very grim for them.

It's time for a few loyal Democrats to get together and make a chart that considers all the negatives of these two candidates and then gives that information to voters.  The media is in the tank for McCain.  They're not going to tell us the truth.  They want to run against Hillary.


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill and Hillary on trial for fraud (none / 0)

All I have to say about that trial is...LMAO


by americanincanada on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:32:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill and Hillary on trial for fraud (2.00 / 1)

You obviously haven't read the DOJ brief.  I have.  

It's this whole "pretend it isn't there" strategy of Hillary's that has her losing this primary.  

Pretend she's inevitable.  
Pretend Republicans won't come out in droves to vote against her.  
Pretend she's winning.  
Pretend she came in second in Iowa.
Pretend she won big in New Hampshire.
Pretend she won Texas.
Pretend she can win still the nomination.
Pretend she can raise funds like Obama can.  
Pretend she was never rabidly pro-NAFTA (NAFTA has been good for this country overall, the problem is not NAFTA.  I support the Clintons on this.  I wish HIllary had just told the truth.)  
Pretend there are no honesty issues.  
Pretend she was shot at in Bosnia.  
Pretend there is no trial.

Pretend, pretend, pretend.

You can dismiss it.  I don't care.  I've already voted and I voted for Edwards.  But if I were a Hillary supporter - I'd be getting my head out of my ass and finding out what's really out there.  It ain't pretty.


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:48:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's honesty issues. (2.00 / 2)

By the way, this is not the only honesty issue that will plague Hillary should she win.  

There is Hsu, there are all the fresh-off-the-boat Chinese immigrants with no records of ever having any money at all giving Hillary $2300 each.  WTF?  Republicans can't wait to get at that one.  

There is a long list of suspicious "returns" of money in Clinton's fundraising records for this ccampaign.  

There is fraudulently acquired money that Hillary refuses to return.  

The list is a long one when it comes to Hillary and honesty.

We can't be afraid of the Republicans.  They will viciously attack the nominee and they have the media on their side.  Whoever is the nominee, we need to be like Ghandi.  Face them down with the truth, and don't go along with media narratives.  We must stop being victims, stop cowering.


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:40:16 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly (none / 0)

OK, from now on I call foul an any diarist (especially front page ones) pimping a poll showing one candidate moving up WHEN ANOTHER POLL ISSUED EXACTLY THE SAME DAY SHOWS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE TREND.

(bleep) ... technical foul, unsporstmanlike conduct, Singer, Obamatons.


by ColoradoGuy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:59:35 PM EST

Obama Bounces Back (none / 0)

Ummm... for all those that say American will be afraid to vote for Obama, that is not true.  All the thousands of people that attend his rallies very much intend on voting for him.  He draws more people than any other candidate.  He has mass appeal which a leader should have.  The hundreds of thousands donating online to his campaign have every intention on voting for  him. People are not going to give their money if they don't want the candidate.

Hillary is polarizing.  Her experience is being two-faced and shady.  Obama has more legislative experience that she does but he doesn't go around bragging about that.  She tells half truths that make her look good when the whole truth shines the light on the real issues with her and Bill.

McCain has no room to open his mouth.  He is clueless about the issues of this country.  He has already admitted to not knowing much about the economy.  That is the MAIN issue!  How is he going to solve it if he doesn't think anything is wrong with it?  And the nation does not want any more billions of dollars floating over to Iraq.  Those people have crap loads of money and can finance their own civil war to create stability in their region.  

The only reason why Bush wanted to go over there was to 1) get revenge for Sadam attempting to kill Bush Sr. and boost the revenues for the Bush family oil companies.  They are in business with teh Saudi government if you weren't aware.  They don't intend for the oil prices to come down because they are getting richer by the second off of all this mess.

They are afraid of Obama because he is NOT an insider and will topple everything they worked so hard to monopolize.  They didn't want to come right out with the obvious attacks at first because they didn't want to be labeled racists and that would hurt them nation-wide.  So they sneakily started introducing coded remarks that refer to race to start attacking him.  

They have nothing on him personally.  You see that they can only attack people AROUND him but not him personally.  The Clintons are a joke an have so much bagage and skeletons in their closets that it's amazing that anyone would support them at all.

In my opinion, out of all the people that were in the race from the start I truly feel that the onlly ones I would have ever considered voting for were: Obama, Kucinish, and maybe Edwards and Paul.

The others just don't cut it for me.

OBAMA 08!


by juang on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:07:27 PM EST

Re: Obama Bounces Back (none / 0)

I'm sorry, sir, but it's you that are a joke. Anyone who would say they wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, Dodd, Boden, or Richardson, but would consider Ron Paul, obviously hasn't a clue what these people are about. Ron Paul is a borderline psycho conservative, in case you didn't know. You're obviously just having a kneejerk positive reaction to "outsiders," not even realizing that people like Kucinich and, yes, even Obama, are as insider-y as it gets. Most of Washington beltway culture HATES Hillary Clinton. She's the outsider.


by ColoradoGuy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dream on! (none / 0)


by laternighter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:33:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup (none / 0)

Pathetic and funny: Dem Hater Russert having a "serious" discussion with 2 Obama lovers and 2 Clinton Haters.

When Reganite Peggy Noonan is waxing (slobbering?) poetic about Obama, you tell me who the GOP is really afraid of.

Moderate Dems need to think of what to do with the HuffingKos takeover of the party.


by LP from MD on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:32:34 PM EST

Re: Gallup (none / 0)

embrace it.  It's about time progressives had a voice in this party.


It's all about McCain/Bush now...
by thereisnospoon on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:03:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup (none / 0)

Obama's progressive sheep's clothing should fool no one.  


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:10:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup (none / 0)

Absolutely  correct.  Obama's   not  a progressive.    And  he's  definitely  not  a  moderate.  

Think  back  on  presidential  elections:   how many of   the  Democratic   Party's  liberals  ever    actually  WON  a  general   election?    

The  candidate  who   actually  WON ---twice----was   a moderate.  

Obama   has  lost  the middle  due  to the  Wright  fiasco.   The Independents  and  Reagan Democrats in   crucial  states   have  moved  away  from  him.   The  disillusioned youth vote   has    also    gone.  


by auntmo on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup (none / 0)

disillusioned youth vote?  Your evidence for this is....what?  Youth polling in PA is no indicator of youth polling across the country.


It's all about McCain/Bush now...
by thereisnospoon on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:28:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please Get Real - Obama on Life Support (none / 0)

In order for Obama to have any chance, According to his campaign manager,  he would have to get at least 70+% of the Latino vote. Gore and Kerry received 63% and 53%, respectively. Obama's own team fully expects him to get less than 41% of the white vote.

In order to get 70+% of the latino vote he would have to put Bill Richardson on the ticket. If he puts Richardson on the ticket he would have to get 100% of the Latino vote to make up for all the women, white working-class, and elderly vote he loses.

Question: How can it be in this election year, a year strongly favoring Democrats, that we have a candidate that is such a long-shot to win it all?

Answer: Irrational Exuberance.

Many latinos don't support black candidates, for whatever reason and they like McCain. Polls show as many as 55% of latino Democrats will cross party lines and vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Don't under-estimate the significance of that dynamic.

Hillary enjoys the support of 71% of latinos; the Clinton's are very popular in the latino community.  Here's one prediction I'm confident with: if Obama wins the nomination and Hillary is on the ticket, McCain will win the election handily. I'm not sure he would win with Hillary but I'm confident he will lose without her. Especially, if the campaigns get any uglier.


by mmorang on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:10:27 PM EST

Correction: Please Get Real- Obama on Life Support (none / 0)

In order for Obama to have any chance, According to his campaign manager,  he would have to get at least 70+% of the Latino vote. Gore and Kerry received 63% and 53%, respectively. Obama's own team fully expects him to get less than 41% of the white vote.

In order to get 70+% of the latino vote he would have to put Bill Richardson on the ticket. If he puts Richardson on the ticket he would have to get 100% of the Latino vote to make up for all the women, white working-class, and elderly vote he loses.

Question: How can it be in this election year, a year strongly favoring Democrats, that we have a candidate that is such a long-shot to win it all?

Answer: Irrational Exuberance.

Many latinos don't support black candidates, for whatever reason and they like McCain. Polls show as many as 55% of latino Democrats will cross party lines and vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Don't under-estimate the significance of that dynamic.

Hillary enjoys the support of 71% of latinos; the Clinton's are very popular in the latino community.  Here's one prediction I'm confident with: if Obama wins the nomination and Hillary is not on the ticket, McCain will win the election handily. I'm not sure he would win with Hillary but I'm confident he will lose without her. Especially, if the campaigns get any uglier.


by mmorang on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:13:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please Get Real - Obama on Life Support (none / 0)

"In order for Obama to have any chance, According to his campaign manager, according to his campaign manager, he would have to get at least 70+% of the Latino vote. "

Can we have a link to that statement -- it seems a rather odd one to me.


by Aris Katsaris on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please Get Real - Obama on Life Support (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/22/1312 5/0839


by mmorang on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:05:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please Get Real - Obama on Life Support (none / 0)

You touch upon the raw nerve the pundits don't want to acknowledge. They are trying to convince everyone that elderly white women are all that Clinton has going for her.

Fact is, Latinos are taking a very good look at McCain. He's the only Repub that didn't seem to want to deport them all and make English the official language. And they resent was many Dems are doing to the Clintons.

Another fact is that "Beeeeeel" Richardson has no clout among Hispanic. Didn't NM go to Clinton?


by LP from MD on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:41:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please Get Real - Obama on Life Support (none / 0)

Bill Clinton watched a football game with Richardson the Sunday before the NM primary with the press invited to take pictures. It was a half-assed unofficial endorsement that got the job done.

Richardson's endorsement now is pretty meaningless because of the timing.


by mmorang on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:01:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yay! nt (none / 0)


McCain does Not support the troops
by hope monger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:07:57 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

People are citing Obama's favorable/unfavorable numbers as evidence his electability has been damaged, but that's not the whole story. Take a look at this chart: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/overall_favorable_ratings_ for_presidential_candidates

What you find is that two weeks ago, the numbers looked like this (all Favorable/Unfavorable):

Obama: 51/46
Clinton: 50/48
McCain: 51/46

Today they look like this:

Obama: 47/51
Clinton: 42/55
McCain: 54/42

So while it's true Obama's numbers have fallen (-4 favorable/ +5 unfavorable), Clinton's have fallen even further (-8 favorable/ +7 unfavorable). She continues to be both less liked, and more disliked than Obama. The only person gaining in this process is McCain, whose numbers climb higher and higher as people don't actually see or hear of him at all.

All of which implies that that Obama's numbers are falling as part of a larger process in which both candidates are being damaged, a process that is breathing oxygen into the McCain campaign without doing anything to make Clinton more electable relative to Obama.


The Washington Post gave Mrs Clinton four Pinocchios for [the sniper story], which is like three Michelin stars, only for lying. -- The Economist
by BITNPB on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:58:09 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

Your  comment  is  a  copout.  

McCain's   favorables  are  skyrocketing  compared   to  BOTH  Dem   candidates.    

And   if  Obama  is our nominee,  McCain  wins  in  a  landslide.    

The   arrogance  of  the  Obama  supporter  assumptions    is  astounding.  


by auntmo on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:47:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 1)

Let's take your points one at a time:

1. Introducing facts into the discussion is not a "copout."

2. I'm the one that told you McCain was rising relative to both candidates. It's right there in my original post. You don't need to point it out to me.

3. This faith-based meme is not supported by any facts or evidence. If she's less liked and more disliked than he after the week he's had, how does they make her more electable?

4. Anything that causes Clinton supporters problems, whether it is a fact, or a person, they call it "arrogant." I'm not sure why someone who claims to know with absolute certainty what will happen in the GE would accuse someone else of arrogance. Don't you find that slur just draws attention to your own arrogance and conceit?


The Washington Post gave Mrs Clinton four Pinocchios for [the sniper story], which is like three Michelin stars, only for lying. -- The Economist
by BITNPB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:33:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.